Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

In the history of Japanese martial arts there has always been a cultural view of mind and body which puts into perspective the western view of that being 'new'.

So when Tohei presented mind and body co-ordination it was only new really to those outside of Japan. So that's an intro for you.

Then we come to the concept of Hara. Once again always been there in Japanese Martial Arts and was considered where you keep your Ki or spiritual centre.

Now this could be called whatever other name you like form china or wherever, dantien etc. The medical ways of Japan dealt with energy paths and no doubt originated way back in china and acupuncture so also included energy balancing and thus the concepts of yin and yang.

I say all this to give you a picture of Japanese and what was common to Japanese and held by them as normal Japanese ways.

So now to tell you about the second body mind concept of equal importance and significance to the Japanese. Once again very normal and cultural and widely known throughout their history. This second mind body concept was common knowledge. I say this also so that when you consider O'Sensei and Aikido it would be obvious to the Japanese what was expected of them yet to westerners they would need to be told. Thus I feel this second concept has been missed by most westerners.

The second concept is Koshi. The second centre. So for Japanese they were used to using two centres so to speak.

Luckily for those who did Toheis Aikido where they developed weight underside they were in fact learning about Koshi.

Koshi is the back of the hips, translating as the lumbar pelvic centre. Just near the base of the spine.

This in Martial Arts goes back to the origins of all Japanese martial arts. The Hara was the spirit centre and Koshi was the pivot from where you moved. Keep ki in your centre and move from koshi is standard procedure.

Thus the centre of so called 'ground force' in Aikido terms or Japanese is Koshi.

Now I'll leave you with my own personal advice. Connect to heaven with Hara and earth with Koshi.

First, do you have a citation in which it is quite clear that Tohei (or any other Japanese martial artist) is using koshi in a way that refers specifically to "small of the back" and not the entire region, which includes "hara?"

Second, while all these points or regions play a role in direction and alignment, how could a ground force "originate" or be "centered" someplace other than the ground? Wouldn't that make it some other kind of force if it were?

Would you care to elaborate on that? How is weight underside connected to Koshi?

Is that the same 'ground force' as Mike Sigman's ground path?

How can I tell if I do that correctly?

Hi Joep.
Ming men? I asked Mike if this was so and he said no. However, not that I'm too interested in what the Chinese call it or if their view on it is the same, but I believe they call it 'yao'

Weight underside: When practising weight underside, admittedly until you get good at it, you are practising relaxing the body, letting Ki flow through the body, learning about centre etc. but at the same time becoming more and more aware of gravity as if you are actually harmonizing with gravity.

Eventually you feel the difference between this harmonizing with gravity and centre. You feel and know the difference.

Now actually I'll tell you what happens. You feel what seems like a door opening at Koshi. Where most if they check it will find the base of their back tightens this is the complete opposite. Instead of tightening like a door closing, it opens and you feel Koshi. Now you realize that when you lose weight underside it is Koshi that is not open or relaxed. Get Koshi back and weight underside returns.

Now when you are used to and using Koshi all the time you find weight underside is there all the time and no longer a consideration.

As to wether that's the same ground force as Mike or whoever I don't really care to be honest.

To tell if you're using it properly is obviously a matter of practice and thus seeing the difference of when you are and when you are not using it.

Rather than go on about what it does etc. I'll just give you an exercise to do so that you can feel the difference.

Try doing funakogiundo with a partner pinning your wrists to your side. Try it with force. Try it with centre. Try it with Koshi. See the differences. Of course I am assuming you are familiar with these exercises and the nuances of them . Good luck.

I didn't find koshi defined the way you do in the literature I consulted. Did you receive that teaching from someone else or did you create that definition ?

Ludwig.
First about me. Yes I was taught weight underside and Koshi many years ago as standard procedure. Since coming to Aikiweb and assuming everyone knew about it I find that not many do apparently.

I wasn't taught by academics and looking it up and finding it's history and debating the pro's and cons etc. so when I see others debating things or I know something then I know that if I now search I will find some reference somewhere to it. So my research is more to do with validating what I already know and do. So yes it is my definition but I can find and give references to it from sources on the net. I found a great one recently.

First, do you have a citation in which it is quite clear that Tohei (or any other Japanese martial artist) is using koshi in a way that refers specifically to "small of the back" and not the entire region, which includes "hara?"

Second, while all these points or regions play a role in direction and alignment, how could a ground force "originate" or be "centered" someplace other than the ground? Wouldn't that make it some other kind of force if it were?

Best,

FL

Hi Fred.
Citation? As in my response above I'll look one up for you and post it.

Secondly if you read my response earlier you will see my explanation. How can ground force be 'centred' someplace other than the ground? Well that's for you to discover. The practice and use of Koshi answers that.

Yes it is another kind of force and that's the whole point. For me put in simple terms it is the Earth energy, Ki. Ground force is not and never has been my terminology. Thus I have no use for it or need for such terminology.

Granted my own background is different but my late teacher was in Tohei Sensei's lineage pre-split and for a while after; she trained with him quite a bit in Calif and Hawaii and her own teaching was based on that. I never heard her reference "koshi" in discussing four principles, power or movement.

Hi Fred.
Citation? As in my response above I'll look one up for you and post it.

Secondly if you read my response earlier you will see my explanation. How can ground force be 'centred' someplace other than the ground? Well that's for you to discover. The practice and use of Koshi answers that.

Yes it is another kind of force and that's the whole point. For me put in simple terms it is the Earth energy, Ki. Ground force is not and never has been my terminology. Thus I have no use for it or need for such terminology.

Regards.G.

Graham,

I've had several teachers who were well-versed in Tohei's methods and had direct experience with him as students, each of whom continued to use his four principles, his teachings on ki, his methods of ki breathing, and so forth, even after the great split, when they no longer had any formal affiliation with him. Subsequently, in my own training, I've investigated those methods in some depth over a number of years to good effect. Don't get me wrong, it can be great stuff.

I've also done some study of the Japanese view of mind and body, and its transmission to the west -- though my scholarship and my practical application are woefully lacking when I compare my efforts with others of real accomplishment. I think it is fair to say that Tohei was the first person to transmit these teachings to the west in the language of Dale Carnegie's "How to Make Friends and Influence People," (which was apparently one of Tohei Sensei's favorite English-language books). But the distinctive differences between the Cartesian dualism of body and mind and the pan-Asian (it's really not just Japanese, you see) view of the interdependence of body and mind were addressed in both terms of both mental understanding and physical practices by a great many people before Tohei, some Japanese, some Chinese, some Indian, and even some in the West.

In your original post, you state quite unequivocally: "Thus the centre of so called 'ground force' in Aikido terms or Japanese is Koshi.

In this post, you state quite unequivocally: "Ground force is not and never has been my terminology. Thus I have no use for it or need for such terminology."

Mike Sigman has remarked a number of times over the years on the phenomenon of folks who say "yes, we have that," or "yes, we do that."

Well, I could say "Yes, before I encountered Mike, I was doing that all along."

To go back to one of the electrical examples he likes so much, my statement that "I was doing that all along," would have been entirely accurate if I meant that "Before I met a guy who knew how to put together a radio receiver, I was once reading largely theoretical works about radio waves and circuit design and getting some general grasp while he was listening to Vivaldi on the radio receiver he built from scratch."

I'm not disputing the importance of the hara, or koshi, or any one of a number of points you make. I'm also not claiming any major achievement in my ability to manifest "ground force." But I am claiming some small familiarity with aikido in general, the force generated by senior practitioners, and the methods used to train that force on the one hand, and on the other hand, with the kind of force Mike can generate, and the basic methods he uses to give folks the proverbial "foot in the door." I have met senior aikido practitioners who can generate tremendous force. But the precision of training method is something else entirely.

If "ground force" isn't part of your terminology, how can you know that you are generating it? If you can't know that you are generating it, how can you assert that it is the same as what you think you know? And if you have no need of it, but it's the same as what you have, aren't you saying that you don't need what you do have?

In short, it's difficult to make heads or tails out of what you're claiming here, and I don't think the confusion is all mine.

I've had several teachers who were well-versed in Tohei's methods and had direct experience with him as students, each of whom continued to use his four principles, his teachings on ki, his methods of ki breathing, and so forth, even after the great split, when they no longer had any formal affiliation with him. Subsequently, in my own training, I've investigated those methods in some depth over a number of years to good effect. Don't get me wrong, it can be great stuff.

I've also done some study of the Japanese view of mind and body, and its transmission to the west -- though my scholarship and my practical application are woefully lacking when I compare my efforts with others of real accomplishment. I think it is fair to say that Tohei was the first person to transmit these teachings to the west in the language of Dale Carnegie's "How to Make Friends and Influence People," (which was apparently one of Tohei Sensei's favorite English-language books). But the distinctive differences between the Cartesian dualism of body and mind and the pan-Asian (it's really not just Japanese, you see) view of the interdependence of body and mind were addressed in both terms of both mental understanding and physical practices by a great many people before Tohei, some Japanese, some Chinese, some Indian, and even some in the West.

In your original post, you state quite unequivocally: "Thus the centre of so called 'ground force' in Aikido terms or Japanese is Koshi.

In this post, you state quite unequivocally: "Ground force is not and never has been my terminology. Thus I have no use for it or need for such terminology."

Mike Sigman has remarked a number of times over the years on the phenomenon of folks who say "yes, we have that," or "yes, we do that."

Well, I could say "Yes, before I encountered Mike, I was doing that all along."

To go back to one of the electrical examples he likes so much, my statement that "I was doing that all along," would have been entirely accurate if I meant that "Before I met a guy who knew how to put together a radio receiver, I was once reading largely theoretical works about radio waves and circuit design and getting some general grasp while he was listening to Vivaldi on the radio receiver he built from scratch."

I'm not disputing the importance of the hara, or koshi, or any one of a number of points you make. I'm also not claiming any major achievement in my ability to manifest "ground force." But I am claiming some small familiarity with aikido in general, the force generated by senior practitioners, and the methods used to train that force on the one hand, and on the other hand, with the kind of force Mike can generate, and the basic methods he uses to give folks the proverbial "foot in the door." I have met senior aikido practitioners who can generate tremendous force. But the precision of training method is something else entirely.

If "ground force" isn't part of your terminology, how can you know that you are generating it? If you can't know that you are generating it, how can you assert that it is the same as what you think you know? And if you have no need of it, but it's the same as what you have, aren't you saying that you don't need what you do have?

In short, it's difficult to make heads or tails out of what you're claiming here, and I don't think the confusion is all mine.

Best,

FL

Hi Fred.
This is not about Mike or anyone else so please don't let's go there. Let's stick to Koshi.

My mentioning of him in purely in response to the questioner asking about what he said or asking me to compare.

Knowing what koshi is and it's relationship to gravity and Earth Ki I thus was interested in what all this ground force talk was about.

On discovering the descriptions of it I thus see where I have come across it or similar in the past. Thus I see some similarities and some differences. That seems simple enough to me. What's the confusion?

Read the article I pointed out. Note that it's common knowledge. Note that seiza is the act of sitting in or with Koshi. Note that while one (hara) was taken up by the west the other(koshi) was not. Note these are all to do with Japanese ways including and especially applicable to the understanding of Japanese Martial arts.

Study first, understand, then compare and contrast rather than just defend one view in order to put down another.

Thus I understand to a degree what ground force terminology is referring to. I have met people in the past who use such internal things and that's not to say it's exactly the same as what's talked about here but chances are it was from that ballpark.

Now, unlike you I have had no need to try to do what they were doing for what I was doing was unaffected by it. In fact the comments given to me were always to the affect of ahhh, you know.

Well the funny thing is I do know what I know and only felt and harmonized and dealt with what they know. I have never had a reason to learn what they knew and always viewed it as their way. No more, no less. In my experience they went away knowing that I did Aikido and were impressed and hopefully learned something.

So for clarification the similarity is this: Koshi harmonizes and utilizes energy from below, from the ground, gravity, and I won't go into the spiritual aspects of it as everyone seems to complain they don't get it. So surely you can see A similarity there but that's all. The descriptions I have seen of ground force and the ip terminology tell me it's not exactly the same.

However if you read what I said in the previous post I believe, according to that article, that the Chinese called it yao.

Now even if they did no doubt they would have their take on it whilst the Japanese would have theirs.

Granted my own background is different but my late teacher was in Tohei Sensei's lineage pre-split and for a while after; she trained with him quite a bit in Calif and Hawaii and her own teaching was based on that. I never heard her reference "koshi" in discussing four principles, power or movement.

That's perfectly understandable to me Janet. The west was interested in hara and not Koshi.

As I said it was of no significance to the Japanese for they were brought up knowing it. What someone like Tohei would see and note is the emphasis those from the west put on upper body and force thus the principles are to let go of all that and learn centre and relaxation.

One point leads to the stillness of mind.

Relaxing, weight underside leads to the understanding of Koshi.

Extending Ki leads to the understanding and use of Hara or centre.

I must say that I too never heard Tohei emphasize Koshi as such but did explain such things as dropping centre. When you see him do such things and watch carefully you will see it's not from the front so to speak but from Koshi. The west tend to put all this down to a low centre of gravity and look no further.

Hi Fred.
This is not about Mike or anyone else so please don't let's go there. Let's stick to Koshi.

Graham,

Inasmuch as it was you who asserted that koshi and ground-path are the same, the reason for referencing Mike Sigman is his long-standing use of the term "ground-path" and the effort he's put into making clear what he means by that, both in words and in introductory seminars.

Thus, I was interested in your explanation of the relationship between the two. However, with each question I ask, you move on to another series of assertions which you base on what you feel, simultaneously dismissing the need for any experience (or empirical examination) of the thing with which you have no experience but "feel" to be the same as what you feel you understand.

Inasmuch as it was you who asserted that koshi and ground-path are the same, the reason for referencing Mike Sigman is his long-standing use of the term "ground-path" and the effort he's put into making clear what he means by that, both in words and in introductory seminars.

Thus, I was interested in your explanation of the relationship between the two. However, with each question I ask, you move on to another series of assertions which you base on what you feel, simultaneously dismissing the need for any experience (or empirical examination) of the thing with which you have no experience but "feel" to be the same as what you feel you understand.

Sorry to have troubled you.

Cheers.

FL

Oh dear. Is my English not clear enough for you?

I did not assert they were the same. Did I not point out A similarity?

Did I not say that's where it ends?

Did I not explain my interest in what ground path meant and thus explain the differences I found?

Can you read?

I'm not troubled by your enquiry. I give you references to read so that you can see the difference. None of this vaguely equals an assertion of the same.

I don't feel it is the same at all. I'm actually quite happy that it's not.

That's perfectly understandable to me Janet. The west was interested in hara and not Koshi.

As I said it was of no significance to the Japanese for they were brought up knowing it. What someone like Tohei would see and note is the emphasis those from the west put on upper body and force thus the principles are to let go of all that and learn centre and relaxation.

One point leads to the stillness of mind.

Relaxing, weight underside leads to the understanding of Koshi.

Extending Ki leads to the understanding and use of Hara or centre.

I must say that I too never heard Tohei emphasize Koshi as such but did explain such things as dropping centre. When you see him do such things and watch carefully you will see it's not from the front so to speak but from Koshi. The west tend to put all this down to a low centre of gravity and look no further.

Regards.G.

But Tohei Sensei was a very clear, plain-speaking teacher. If he meant "koshi" he would have said "koshi."
I will grant you that by "centre" (as in "drop one's center") he probably did not mean the same thing as "one point" (as in "keep mind at one point") or he wouldn't have used a different word.
I can't think of anything in Tohei's teaching to suggest it is the sacrum/sacroliliac area.
In my own practice, I experience the "centre" as being that entire area between the diaphragm and pubis, encompassing front and back, a large globe if you will, resting on the hips, with the one point within it.
I still don't get the "koshi" thing outside of your system but that's ok - I think we have each clarified our language and usage and may have to agree to respectfully disagree.

But Tohei Sensei was a very clear, plain-speaking teacher. If he meant "koshi" he would have said "koshi."
I will grant you that by "centre" (as in "drop one's center") he probably did not mean the same thing as "one point" (as in "keep mind at one point") or he wouldn't have used a different word.
I can't think of anything in Tohei's teaching to suggest it is the sacrum/sacroliliac area.
In my own practice, I experience the "centre" as being that entire area between the diaphragm and pubis, encompassing front and back, a large globe if you will, resting on the hips, with the one point within it.
I still don't get the "koshi" thing outside of your system but that's ok - I think we have each clarified our language and usage and may have to agree to respectfully disagree.

Hi Janet.
I agree with what you say.

I can only point out not only what I learned but how I learned it and the explanations given.

As you are probably aware I was taught with emphasis on the Tohei principles and my teacher was English. However he taught us within that framework Koshi.

Now on researching it I find it is not only well known in Japan but traces back to the origins of all Japanese martial arts.

I find this quite amusing as I have often pointed out to people how it makes early Judo and Sumo make sense.

I do remember early on my own teacher wondering why we wern't duplicating what he wanted us to do and then him realizing we had a different view on what using the hips meant. Thus our introduction to Koshi.

Anyway. Hopefully it's interesting at least and for some it may explain a few anomalies they have come across.

To clarify what I teach for others I would say that koshi is the centre of relaxing energy and hara is the centre of vibrant energy.

Years ago I was sitting in a restaurant with some friends. In the next booth some people were discussing proper Formula One Racing driving methods. These guys knew everything! Proper shifting methods, how to take a turn most efficiently, etc. Unfortunately they were all 14-year-old boys. No drivers licenses yet let alone any likely experience behind the wheel of a half million dollar race car.

Now I'm perfectly willing to accept that the kid's might be right in some respects in terms of their knowledge gleaned from various sources. But they probably should hesitate to argue with people who've actually driven an F1... And there is a very deep question about how much they could truly to be said to understand the topic without having ever been behind the wheel.

IMHO you do that a lot, Graham. As a matter of fact I would say you just did that in a rather profound way.

Years ago I was sitting in a restaurant with some friends. In the next booth some people were discussing proper Formula One Racing driving methods. These guys knew everything! Proper shifting methods, how to take a turn most efficiently, etc. Unfortunately they were all 14-year-old boys. No drivers licenses yet let alone any likely experience behind the wheel of a half million dollar race car.

Now I'm perfectly willing to accept that the kid's might be right in some respects in terms of their knowledge gleaned from various sources. But they probably should hesitate to argue with people who've actually driven an F1... And there is a very deep question about how much they could truly to be said to understand the topic without having ever been behind the wheel.

IMHO you do that a lot, Graham. As a matter of fact I would say you just did that in a rather profound way.

And I'm trying to do that less. So on that note... Toodles.

Keith.
A touch of the same ol same ol? I think those kids knew quite a bit about formula 1 by your description.

I'm a formula 1 driver by that analogy, maybe formula 2, so what's your point? Are you one of those kids?

Keith.
A touch of the same ol same ol? I think those kids knew quite a bit about formula 1 by your description.

Yes, in a certain shallow, superficial, and totally naive fashion they did. And they also had a great deal of confidence in their views as well as the profundity of what they were saying.

But if they had any brains at all they should keep their mouths shut and ears (mind) open when speaking with those who have actually driven the cars, neh? You just never know whether you're speaking to someone who might actually have direct, personal experience with the very things you've never seen or done. Such speculation often ends up sounding like a bunch of 14-year-old speaking out of their hind regions. Which is sometimes rather endearing in an enthusiastic 14-year-old. Not so much in a grown man who you'd think would know better.

Yes, in a certain shallow, superficial, and totally naive fashion they did. And they also had a great deal of confidence in their views as well as the profundity of what they were saying.

But if they had any brains at all they should keep their mouths shut and ears (mind) open when speaking with those who have actually driven the cars, neh? You just never know whether you're speaking to someone who might actually have direct, personal experience with the very things you've never seen or done. Such speculation often ends up sounding like a bunch of 14-year-old speaking out of their hind regions. Which is sometimes rather endearing in an enthusiastic 14-year-old. Not so much in a grown man who you'd think would know better.